"john boyle" wrote
Why doesn't the surveyor have a similar responsibility towards the purchaser, who instructed the surveyor originally and paid *even more* money to get a fuller report??
"john boyle" wrote
Well, presumably simply so that they can advertise "95% maximum" (sounds good to someone who only has enough for a 5% deposit) - even though the true maximum is not that high!
In message , Tim writes
Not quite, I think you are trying to put an incorrect 'spin' on it by slapping on this 'unprofessional' label. It seems to imply that valuing a house is like obtaining the result of a mathematical equation, which it most certainly is not.
A formal valuation for mortgage purposes 'should' come out at the same figure if done by the same valuer on the same day. The answer to the 'key question (previous posts) will depend on the loan to value ratio.
A survey for the purposes of sale or purchase are different things.
In message , Tim writes
He does. That is not in question.
I still cants ee how this benefits the lender, and I have never ever heard of it taking place.
"john boyle" wrote
OK, so when you said "the fee is not usually reduced substantially because of the responsibility the valuer takes on ...", and you now agree that the valuer had *already* taken on this responsibility (when doing the full report on the house for the purchaser) -- why the substantial extra fee??
"john boyle" wrote
Doesn't *advertising* a higher maximum LTV get more punters to apply? Doesn't that benefit the lender? Doesn't *requiring* a lower LTV help remove future bad debts? Doesn't that benefit the lender?
In message , Tim writes
The extra responsibility for answering the key question " Is this suitable as security for a loan of £xxx" He has the responsibility to both with regards to accuracy etc.,
Not if it ends up with the lender not being able to lend. Most mortgage business is acquired via intermediaries, rather than 'over the counter'. This kind of behaviour would get them nowhere. If the wont lend enough, then the punter goes elsewhere. If a lender were to attempt to influence the valuer, then the valuer would decline the business.
But if the house is donw valued, how does that make it better, cos the applicant just goes elsewhere!
"john boyle" wrote
Well, in the case I had in mind the punters *didn't* go elsewhere - because the lender in question was the employer and the loans were *subsidised*. The punters made up the difference themselves, scraping together the last few thousand fron whatever source. Still, not nice when they thought that they could afford the house fairly comfortably - because they thought they'd be able to get a 95% mortgage loan!
"john boyle" wrote
Doesn't that apply equally to a *purchaser* attempting to influence the valuer?
"john boyle" wrote
Not in the case I mentioned! (see above)
In message , Tim writes
Well I have been in those circs myself, i.e. my then employer lending the dosh, but what makes you think the lender deliberately got the valuer to down value the property?
Coiuld it not just have been that the property was over priced?
I've seen this often when the hysterical purchaser who has set their heart on a property and offered a ridiculous price gets ratty with the valuer when he says it aint worth what has been offered. Surely the valuer is doing the purchaser a favour!
Of course. But then if things go as they should, without the purchaser jumping the gun by appointing his own surveyor and then wanting the lender to use his surveyor, then the valuer would tell the purchase to bugger off. This is why purchasers are very rarely told WHO is going to value the property and they are also very rarely in attendance when the valuation takes place and also why the valuers name is very rarely shown on the report that the purchaser gets.
"john boyle" wrote
It wasn't just one property - it was all cases in general. It was common knowledge in the company that the company valuations for the subsidised mortgages generally always came out lower than any previous valuation on the house, done immediately before for the purchaser.
I have worked for several lenders with subsidised mortgages, do not recall any intentional/artificial low-balling.
Although one employer did not permit buying a property which was "better" than one's manager's (who also happened to do the valuation.) :)
"Doug Ramage" wrote
Heheh, I was once in the position that I bought a new car (privately, but using a company - subsidised - car loan) which was the same make/model but a bigger engine & better trim, than the car my manager had as a company car ...
[Company rules didn't allow my manager to get a car as good as the one I bought!!]n message , Tim writes
Well in these remarkable circumstances you may have a case.
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required